RFP Questions from Vendors 9 May 22.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 39 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Systems Engineering & Integration Solicitation Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- FA8629-22-R-5031
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 32
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Sheet1
| Offerors | Government | ||||
| Q# | Document | Pg # | Par. # | Comment/Question | Response |
| 1 | General | Please confirm the set aside of Subject requirement whether it is Unrestricted or set aside for Small Business? | The solicitation is unrestricted. | ||
| 2 | General | Please confirm its period of performance. | The period of performance is from 15 December 2022 through 14 December 2032. | ||
| 3 | General | Is the solicitation is Single Award or can be awarded to Multiple vendors? | The requirement is for a single award IDIQ. | ||
| 4 | Section L, Attach 6 | 1 | Section L Attach 6 states: “The Contracting Officer has posted the PPI Tool for the offeror in the Attachs section of the USG beta.sam.gov solicitation posting.” We are unable to locate this file. Can the Government please post the zip file of the PPI tool, or provide additional instructions for locating this file? | The solicitation has been amended to include information about accessing the PPI Tool. A DoDSafe link is being provided to offerors upon request. | |
| 5 | Section L | 5 | Section 3.7 | Section 3.7 states “Electronic submissions should be clearly marked as to volume number, title, solicitation identification, the Offeror's name, and the Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) code. The same identifying data shall be marked in the electronic document footer.” Since other “appropriate markings” are also required in the footer, it would be difficult to fit all of this information in the footer. Rather than including all information solely in the footer, would it be acceptable for Offerors to include this information in the header or footer? | Please follow the instructions as stated in Section 3.7. |
| 6 | Section L | 6 | Section 3.7 | Section 3.7 states “The electronic proposal shall be submitted in a format readable by Microsoft (MS) Office.” Since much of Volume V - Contract Documentation will consist of pdf files, is it acceptable for Offerors to submit Volume V as a pdf file? | The instructions in Paragraph 3.7 have been updated to state: "The electronic proposal shall be submitted in a format readable by Microsoft (MS) Office or Adobe PDF. The Government reserves the right to request specific file formats if necessary. " |
| 7 | Draft Q&A | Q#120 | Government answer to question #120 states “The Final RFP package will be updated with project start date of 3 Oct 2022 (FY23).” Please confirm this date is still valid. | This is not an Attach included in the final RFP package. This information is not valid. | |
| 8 | Sec M | 3-4 | Section 2.1 | Could the Government please provide the relative importance of each of the Subfactors within Factor 1 (Technical)? | Section 2.1 of Section M has been updated to state "Within the Factor 1 (Technical), subfactors 1 through 6 are of equal importance." |
| 9 | Section L | 12 | Section 4.3.1 | “Offeror Price for all CLINS (to include Prime and all subs and interdivisional transfers) shall be clearly annotated and highlighted in Cost / Price Volume II for the Government in order to facilitate an accurate and fair assessment of all proposals." Can the Government correct Volume II to Volume III? | Corrected |
| 10 | Section L | 13 | Section 4.3.1.1 | Section states “As a reminder, the BOEs are only for the CPFF CLINs and CR CLIN X001, X002, X003, X006, X010, X011, and X012 (i.e. not to include the FFP CLINS and the rest of CR and CPFF Plug CLINS)” Would the government consider removing CLIN X006 (an ODC plug) to be consistent with CLINs X004 and X005? | X006 removed |
| 11 | Section L | 15 | Section 4.3.8 | "Where instructed in the cost formats, quotes should be based on the Government Fiscal Year (1 October through 30 September)." Since the cost buildup tabs are based on Contractor Fiscal year, will the Government accept a prorating formula based on the # of months in each CFY to calculate GFY amounts? | Paragraph 4.3.8 states: "If the period of performance of the CLIN will cross the Offeror’s accounting periods, the cost model will include a breakout of amount of hours and labor rates used in each accounting period of the CLIN. Blended rates will not be accepted in the cost model." This applies to both a GFY or CFY breakout. |
| 12 | Section L | 18 | Section 4.3.10.2 | “All materials, equipment, and licenses listed in the BOEs shall also be listed in the cost formats Bill of Material (BOM) table.” Offeror assumes that this requirement applies to materials above and beyond the Government provided plug amounts for EUD Procurement. Will the Government provide a listing of what is included in the plug number, so that offerors can provide a BOM for materials above and beyond? | The items covered as part of EUD Procurement is described within paragraph 3.11 of the PWS. |
| 13 | Section L | 19 | Section 4.3.10.3 | "The Offeror shall provide BOEs for the SE&I task order." Please confirm the BOE refers only to Sample Task Order 1 in Attach 0009, which is for a 1-year period of performance. If not, please clarify. | Refer to updated instructions in Section L, paragraph 4.3.10.3.1 and updated information in Section L, Attachment 9. |
| 14 | Section L | 25 | Section 4.3.10.5.1 | Could the Government change CLIN reference from 0024 to 0023 for “SUPPORT TO TACP INNOVATION CELLS”? | Corrected |
| 15 | Section L | 26 | Section 4.3.10.5.3 | CPFF CLINs section states "This worksheet identifies the type of spares, spares, and repairs description, vendor, the basis for selection, type of contract, unit cost, quantity, items being shipped, locations of items being shipped, shipping costs, and the total price." This sentence does not appear to belong in this section. Could the Government relocate this sentence to the appropriate paragraph? | This has been removed from Section L. |
| 16 | Section L Attach 5 | Tab “Cost by CWBS by GFY” | Can the Government identify CLIN X023 under the TO CLIN(s) column? | This tab has been updated to include X023 | |
| 17 | Section L Attach 5 | Tab “Cost by CWBS by GFY” | CLIN X025 (Post Award Conference) is listed twice, mapping it to two different CWBS sections. Please clarify the CWBS CLIN X025 should be mapped to. | This tab has been updated to correct the mapping for CLIN X024 and CLIN 0025. | |
| 18 | Section L Attach 5 | Tab “Cost by CWBS by GFY” | CWBS 1.3 Configuration and Data Management maps to NSP and ODC Plug CLINs. Can the Government identify which CLIN (if any) labor costs associated with CWBS 1.3 are to be included? | Yes, the spreadsheet has been updated to also incclude CLINs X001, X002, and X003. | |
| 19 | Section L Attach 5 | Tab “CLIN Summary” | Can offerors add calculations in column K to show CLIN totals (Base + Options) for CLINs 0001, 0002, 003 consistent with CLINs 0004-0025? | The cost totals in columns A through J will take precidence. All cost formats need to be filled out. | |
| 20 | Section L Attach 5 | Tab “GFY Summary by CLIN” | Since there are only five columns of GFYs, is this only for the five (5) year Base Period? If not, can additional columns be added to account for ten (10) years of performance under this contract? | 5 more columns have been added to account for ten years of performance. | |
| 21 | Section L Attach 5 | Tab “CPFF Direct & Indirect Rates” | Since there are only five columns of CFYs, is this only for the five (5) year Base Period? If not, can additional columns be added to account for ten (10) years of performance under this contract? | 5 more columns have been added to account for ten years of performance. | |
| 22 | Section L Attach 5 | Tab “Cost CWBS by GFY” | Since there are only five columns of GFYs, is this only for the five (5) year Base Period? If not, can additional columns be added to account for ten (10) years of performance under this contract? | 5 more columns have been added to account for ten years of performance. | |
| 23 | Section L Attach 6 | 1 | PPI Tool (Access database) | Attach 6 states “The Contracting Officer has posted the PPI Tool for the offeror in the Attachs section of the USG beta.sam.gov solicitation posting.” However, no PPI Tool is posted. Will the Government post the PPI tool? | See response to question #4 |
| 24 | RFP | After a review of all documents provided with the solicitation, there is no clear indication of what the ceiling value of the IDIQ is. Will the government provide this data point? | No, the government will provided a ceiling amount to the Awardee. | ||
| 25 | Section L | 9 | 4.2.5.3 | Section L shows two paragraphs numbered 4.2.5.3.2. Should the numbering for that section be as follows: 4.2.5.3.1, 4.2.5.3.2, 4.2.5.3.3, 4.2.5.3.4? (resumes) We request that the government provide clarification. | Paragraph numbering has been corrected. |
| 26 | Section L | 9 | 4.2.5.3.2 | Regarding required resumes, in PWS section 3.10.4 it is written in plural, but Section L only asks for a single training resume. Please confirm only the resume of the lead trainer is required. | This paragraph has been updated to state the following: |
"4.2.5.3.3 The Offeror shall provide résumé for proposed lead trainer demonstrating that the proposed candidate meets the requirements per PWS paragraph 3.10.4."
| 27 | Section L | 9 | 4.2.5.3 | If the offeror identifies other Key Personnel, are resumes required for them as well? | No other key personnel should be identified other than the positions identified in the PWS. |
| 28 | Section L | 18 | 4.3.10.2.1 | Section 4.3.10.2.1 references 4.3.15.8 Bill of Materials for specifics. The referenced paragraph does not exist. Would the government please provide the correct reference for this information? | The correct reference is 4.3.10.5.8 |
| 29 | Section L | General | Will any other USAF or other DoD customers be supported in this program in the out years of the contract? | No, at this time, no other customers will be supported. | |
| 30 | PWS | 48 | First row of table | In the PWS under Attach 1 SE&I Meetings, row 1 calls for Program Management Reviews 2x per year and references PWS Section 3.1.9, Post Award Conference. Is this reference accurate or was it intended to reference 3.1.10? | This row should reference PWS paragraph 3.1.10 |
| 31 | PWS | 15 | 3.1.1.5 | IAW PWS 3.1.1.5, does substitution of any trainer require CO concurrence or only the lead trainer? | The PWS has been updated and this will only apply to the Lead Trainer. |
| 32 | Section L Attach 1 | 1 | Document | Section L, Attach 1: Proposal Cross Reference Matrix states “Offerors shall expand this Matrix so that it shall serve as a detailed Master Table of Contents for the entire proposal showing full compliance with the RFP.” Section L, Section 4.1.2 calls for a master table of contents, are both a table of contents listing by volume and a cross reference matrix required in Vol I, Executive Summary? | The CRM can serve as the table of contents IAW the instruction in the attachment and Section 4.1 of Section L. |
| 33 | Section L Attach 6 | 1 | Not numbered 2nd par. before step 1. | After reviewing Section L Attach 6, it indicates that the PPI tool should be available for download on the SAM.gov solicitation posting. We have reviewed the site twice and the PPI tool has not been uploaded to the site. Will the government please provide the file so that offerors can start building their Past Performance references to be in compliance with the Section L requirements? | See response to question #4 |
| 34 | Section L Attach 7 | All | All | The updated version of the Past Performance Questionnaire is not electronically fillable for the contracting officers that it will be sent to. Would the government please provide a version that is fillable/edible for each response requested? | The document has been updated with a Word attachment so that it is fillable/editable. |
| 35 | Section L Attach 7 | 8 | Section 5 | In the updated version of the Past Performance Questionnaire, it asks to “[click and select an item]”. There is no drop-down menu, list, or other mechanism to select an Item. Would the government please provide either what the drop-down selections should be and/or fix the form to show the options? | See response to question #34 |
| 36 | Section L, Attach 7 | 28 &1 | 3rd paragraph | The PPQ Attach 7 requests written responses by May 2, 2022. But Sec L document, section 4.4.2 on pg 28 of 32 requests PPQ responses be due no later than “proposal due date.” Please confirm that PPQ responses are due on the proposal due date. | This file has been updated to say 8 Jun now (on SAM.gov) |
| 37 | Section L, Attach 6 | 1 | : Section L Attach 6 states: “The Contracting Officer has posted the PPI Tool for the offeror in the Attachs section of the USG beta.sam.gov solicitation posting.” We are unable to locate this file. Can the Government please post the zip file of the PPI tool, or provide additional instructions for locating this file? | See response to question #4 | |
| 38 | All | All | Does the RFP reflect a conformed set of files that INCLUDE updates based on answers to industry questions? If not, would the Govt please provide an updated Q&A file. We asked several questions prior to the RFP release that remain unanswered. Thank you. | Responses to the previous questions on the Draft RFP were released as an ammendment to the Draft RFP. | |
| 39 | Section L, Attach 2 | SW Unit Locations | Will our team be required to train all 3,200+ personnel each quarter? | Refer to the instructions in Section L and in Section L, Attachment 9. | |
| 40 | PWS | 31 | 3.8.1 | The requirement states "The contractor shall derive requirements from the Government's Program Protection Plan (PPP)". Would the Government please provide PPP to Offerors. | This document will be provided to the awardee. |
| 41 | PWS | 33 | 3.8.2 | SWAGR, GA and TACP Mod Cybersecurity Security Classification Guides are referenced in this section. Would the Government please provide these documents to Offerors? Requirements therein could drive estimated effort for program execution. | This document will be provided to the awardee. |
| 42 | PWS | 34 | 3.8.3 | The "SWAGR OPSEC Plan" is referenced without a document number. Offerors require access to this document to meet the PWS requirements stated in this section. Would the Government please provide the SWAGR OPSEC plan to offerors. | This document will be provided to the awardee. |
| 43 | PWS | 43 | 3.13.2 | The requirement for technical support appears to have increased from "normal business hours" (5d x 8h) in the DPWS to a strait 24 hour service level. Does this indicate the Govt intent is to have a 24 x 7 x 365 technical support service? Please clarify | The PWS, paragraph 3.13.2 has been updated to state: "The Contractor shall respond to phone and e-mail requests for support within 24 hours (Monday through Friday, during Awardee’s normal business hours) to begin consultation with the field user." |
| 44 | PWS | 6 | TOC | The PWS ToC indicates a section 3.20 CONTRACT MONITORING (and 4 subsections) may be missing. Perhaps it was deleted and the ToC was not updated. Please confirm whether the PWS is missing section 3.20 and furnish soonest. | This should have been removed from the TOC. Corrected. |
| 45 | PWS | 9 | 2.0 and 3.6.1 | MIL-HDBK-61B is obsolete. EIA/SAE-649 has been developed from MIL-HDBK-61B and 649. Does the Government intend to apply the original -61B or impose the EIA standard. NOTE? -61b clearly says it should not be incorporated as a requirement, but rather, guidance only. | MIL-HDBK-61B is still active and should be used as guidance. We will not impose the EIA standard. |
| 46 | Section L | 14 | 4.3.6 | Section L defines that any subcontractor or interdivisional transfer that will be responsible for 10% or more the proposed price must submit separate Cost/Price Volume and cost formats) in accordance with the guidelines given to the prime contractor/offeror. Please confirm the 10% calculation is based on total contract value. | Yes, the 10% calculation is based on the Offeror's proposed total contract value. |
| 47 | Section L | 19 | 4.3.10.3 | CLIN X006 is listed under the Basis of Estimate, however, Attach 5 - Cost Summary already has a plug figure totaling $625K for the Cost Reimbursement TACP Other Direct CRS. Would the Government please confirm that CLIN X006 is correctly included in the following: Section L - 4.3.10.3 - Basis of Estimate, 4.3.10.5.3 - CPFF CLINs, 4.3.10.5.10 - CPFF Arrangement for Task Order, and 4.3.1.1 Cost and Pricing Information? | CLIN X006 has been deleted from paragraph 4.3.10.3 |
| 48 | Section L | 5 | 3.7 | Please confirm what time zone is applicable to the 3:00 PM delivery deadline? | Section L has been updated to state Eastern |
| 49 | Section L, Attach 5 | Cost Format | Would the Government please clarify the Base CLINs 00## reflect a 5 year period of performance and all subsequent Option CLINs (10##, 20##, 30##, 40##, 50##) reflect only a 12-month period of performance? | Yes, the Cost Format has been updated | |
| 50 | Section L Attach 5 | 2 | Section B | In reviewing the Performance Work Statement and Attach 4 - Model Contract, would the Government please clarify how all Option CLINS (10##, 20##, 30##, 40##, 50##), which are only 12-month basis of estimates, align to the Base CLIN which reflects a 5 year period of performance? For example, is Option CLIN 1001 simply applying escalation to the Year 5 of the Base CLIN 0001? | See response to question #13 |
| 51 | Section L, Attach 9 | 2 | 2.0 | In total there are 13 training events required and the applicable CLINs are 0010, 0011, 0012. How should the costs associated with the 13 training events be allocated across the three CLINs? | Refer to updated instructions in Section L, paragraph 4.3.10.3.1 and updated information in Section L, Attachment 9. |
| 52 | Section M | 13 | 2.4.2.2 | Sec. M 2.4.2.2 Relevancy Assessment, part of the offerors evaluation will be judged based on "….successful implementation of capability IAW Joint Interoperability standards (Ref. Section 1. Tactical Data Network Relevant Standards of the SRD extract)". Offerors must see the relevant SRD or SRD sections to properly address this requirement. Please provide the document (via DoD SAFE or otherwise) as soon as possible. | The relevant standards from the SRD are listed in Section L, Attachment 3. |
| 53 | Section M | 4 | 2.1 | Subfactors 1-5 appear to be of equal importance. Would the Govt confirm this is true and explicitly describe how these subfactors rank in relative importance? | See response to question #8. |
| 54 | Section M | 7 | 2.2.4 | This section states "The past performance information forms (PIFs) and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the degree of relevancy of past performance." Are the PIFs generated once the offeror enters all their information in the Past Performance Information (PPI) Tool as outlined in Sec. L Attach 7? If not, what is a PIF and when will the template be provided to offerors. | Section M, paragraph 2.4.2.2 states, "The Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the degree of relevancy of past performance." There are no references in Section M for "past performance information forms (PIFs)" |
Instructions and Past Performance Questionnaires are provided in Section L, Attachment 7.
| 55 | Section L, Attach 4 | Model Contract, | ||||
| Sec. B | Should "DA" be "GA" in CLIN 0008? | Yes, it should be GA (page 6 and page 77) | ||||
| 56 | Section L Attach 4 | N/A | Would the Govt please establish an award date for purposes of IMS development and pricing? | See response to question #2 | ||
| 57 | Section L, Attach 4 | 2 | Section B | Section B - CLIN 0001 states the ordering period for this CLIN is five years from the date of contract award. If Option 1001 is executed, it would occur in the 6th year of the contract performance. Would the Government please clarify if all Option CLINs are to be priced by simply applying escalation to the Base CLINs? | See response to question #13 | |
| 58 | Section L, Attach 4 | File SEI_Section_L_Attach_4_Model_Contract.pdf summarizes that CLIN 0001 has a “Ordering Period for this CLIN is five years from the date of contract award.” All subsequent CLINS (i.e. 10##, 20##, 30##, 40##, 50##) do not define the Period of Performance. Based on the Cost Summary Excel file, it appears that both Base CLIN and Option CLINs (i.e. 1001) are 5 year period of performances. Would the Government please confirm that the Base CLIN 0001 is 5 years and each Option CLIN is 5 Years? | The Cost Format has been updated to show that the Base Period is 5 years and each option year is 1 year. Box 9 on Section L, Attachment 4 - Model Contract has been revised to clarify that there are "five 12-month options." | |||
| 59 | Section L, Attach 4 | Would the Government please extend the due date for proposal submission by 2 weeks to allow time for answers to questions to be incorporated into proposals? | The Government is extending the proposal due date to 8 June 2022 | |||
| 60 | Section L | 5 | 3.7 | "Use separate files to permit rapid location of all volumes, including subfactors within each volume, exhibits, annexes, and Attachs, if any" |
It is clear that you want the Evaluation Gate file submitted as a separate file. Given that there is a page count limit assigned to the total of all 6 Subfactors, it would be easier to demonstrate that the limit has been met if all of the Subfactors were submitted in one file vice 6 separate files. Please confirm that submitting our response to all 6 Subfactors in a single file is acceptable. Submission of all subfactors in a single file as the Technical Volume is acceptable.
The statement "including subfactors within each volume" has been removed from Section L, paragraph 3.7.
61 Section L Attach 9 8 4.2.5.1 "The Offeror shall provide the following information using the Sample SWAK releases outlined in Attach 9."
| Attach 9 include 7 Task Orders. For our response to Subfactor 1 - please confirm that we only need to address Task Order 1: SWAK development, sustainment, integration, test and field | Task Order 1 should be addressed in the response to Subfactor 1. The other information on the Task Orders are provided for pricing purposes. | ||||
| 62 | Section L | 28 | 4.4.3 | "Submit from one up to five recent contracts that you consider most relevant in demonstrating your ability to perform the proposed effort within the past 5 years |
from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Also include information on up to two contracts of the five recent contracts performed by each of your teaming partners and significant subcontractors that you consider most relevant in demonstrating their ability to perform the proposed effort"
| Please clarify the total number of recent contracts we can submit. Are the contracts provided by our teaming partners counted as part of the 5 maximum contracts? If we have 2 teammates can we provide 2 contracts from each or only 2 of the 5 contracts can come from all of our teammates? | Offerors may submit up to 5 total references where up to 2 from each teamate can be included in the 5 total references per paragraph 4.4.3. | ||||
| 63 | Section L | 30 | 4.5.1.7.3 | "Offerors shall incorporate changes into the PWS by including change bars for all insertions" |
| Can the government please provide the Word version of the PWS to facilitate using Word's track changes feature? | We will update this to be provided as a Word file. | ||
| 64 | Section L | 5 | |
| 30 | 3.4 | ||
| 4.5.1.7.3 | "To the greatest extent possible, each volume shall be written on a stand-alone basis so that its contents may be evaluated with a minimum of cross referencing to other volumes of the proposal. " |
"All inputs will be evaluated as Part of the Technical Volume."
| Section 3.4 states that each volume should be written as a stand alone volume, yet the PWS goes in Vol V but is evaluated in Vol I. Please confirm that although the modified PWS is included in the Contract Documentation Volume it is evaluated in the Technical Volume. | Proposed strengths will be evalutaed as part of Volumne II, but may reference the modified PWS in the Contract Documentation Volume. | ||||
| 65 | Section L Attach 1 | Can the government please provide the Word version of the CRM to facilitate filling in the document? | Yes | ||
| 66 | Section L Attach 4 | The Model Contract is password protected. Please provide a version that we can edit, so we can fill in the required sections. | An editable copy of the model contract had been added to this solicitation and replaces the copy from the initial posting. | ||
| 67 | Section L Attach 5 | N/A | "Various #REF! errors" |
| The spreadsheet contains several cells with errors. Can the government please provide an updated Attach 5 with errors corrected? | These #REF! errors have been corrected/removed in the updated Cost Format. | |||
| 68 | Section L, Attach 6 | 11 | "*.mdb file limit is 16,000 characters and .accdb file limit is 32,000 characters" |
| How can we tell when the .mdb file limit or the .accdb file limit applies to a field? | The character limits will depend on the type of file that the PPI Tool is saved as (either a .mdb or .accdb file extension) | ||||
| 69 | Section L, Attach 9 | 3 | 5 | "5.0 Task Order 5: Support to TACP Innovation Cells: Offerors shall enter the proposed cost of support to TACP Innovation Cells for 1 year IAW PWS paragraph 3.13.4. Applicable CLINS: 23 " |
1. Is this 1-yr of support meaning on-site personnel working M-F?
| 2. Is the gov't looking for the offeror to propose a schedule (e.g., OS personnel working 1 week every quarter for the FY? | Section L, Attachment 9 has been updated with further instructions. | ||||
| 70 | Section L, Attach 9 | 3 | 6 | "6.0 Task Order 6: Field Service Representatives (FSRs): Offerors shall enter the proposed cost to provide FSR support for 1 year, IAW PWS paragraph 3.13.3. Applicable CLINS: 13-15 " |
1. Is this 1-yr of support meaning on-site personnel working M-F?
2. Is the gov't looking for the offeror to propose a schedule (e.g., OS personnel working 1 week every quarter for the FY?
| 3. Since no location is specified (as it is for the TACP innovation cells); is the offer to assume FSR support will be required at all specified TACP/GA/AFSOC locations as listed in the PWS, Attach 2? | Section L, Attachment 9 has been updated with further instructions. | |||||
| 71 | PWS | 13 | 3.1.1.2 | The requirements for the Software Development Lead are very specific and not all commonly held by one person. The criteria seem to target a very small pool of individuals and intended to limit competition. There are several very skilled developers who meet most but not all and would be very successful in role. Please consider opening the aperture and competition. | Per PWS paragraph 3.1.1.2, there are two required criteria. All of the desirable criteria listed in the paragraph will be evaluated IAW Section M instructions. | |
| 72 | PWS | 16 & 27 | "SW Technical Integration Support Center (TISC) Prime; the SE&I Prime may be required to push capability updates to the TISC and the TISC may need to provide technical information for upgrades that are common to the SE&I-developed SWAK system and the TISC-managed SAMS-ESA Kits. |
For AFSOC ST-specific solutions, the Buy-Try-Adapt-Decide process may be coordinated by the Government through the SW TISC."
| vThe TISC is no longer a location in the Hurlburt Field, FL area, can the government please clarify what is intended by the use of the term TISC. | The TISC is no longer in the same location, but still within the Hurlburt Field, FL area. | ||||
| 73 | PWS | 26 | 3.4.1 | "AFRL projects that require integration of hardware or software plug-ins with SWAK, and the MDM/MCM Cloud 1 servers that hosts the SWAK software" |
| Will SWAK SEI efforts remain in Cloud 1 or migrate to the SOCOM Cloud for use across SOF enterprise? | Initial effort will be in Cloud 1. Future Cloud migrations are not planned at this time. | ||||
| 74 | Section M | 2 | 1.6 | A competitive range of the most highly rated proposals will be established IAW FAR 15.306(c) |
in the event discussions with Offerors are to be conducted
| Will the competitive range determination be done with redacted proposals? | A competitive range determination will be made IAW FAR 15.306(c); the Source Seleciton Authority will have access to unredacted proposals. | ||||
| 75 | Section M | 2 | 1.6 | Competitive Range Determination Paragraph |
| Will offerors who are determined NOT to be in the competitive range be notified upon decision or post award? | Refer to FAR 15.503 | ||||
| 76 | Section M | 2 & 5 | 1.6-Table 2E | Competitive Range Determination Paragraph and table 2E. |
| This paragraph leads to criteria being arbitrary, will the government refine evaluation criteria to clearly delineate what will determine low, moderate and high risk of performance in Table 2E. | This is a mandatory table from DoD Source Selection procedures. | |||||
| 77 | Section L | 4.2.5.1. | Offerors are required to address development and integration specific to task order no 01. Does the Government expect offerors to describe their approach to Task Orders 2 (two) through 7 (seven) as part of this response? | See response to question #61 | ||
| 78 | General | Is pandemic related costs reimbursable and considered an incidental expense? | No, current pandemic related costs should already be imbedded in current projections. If necessary, excusible delays tied to new pandemic impacts will be executed IAW exsisting contract clauses. | |||
| 79 | Section L, Attachment 4, Model Contract | 2 to 72 | Section B | As the Period of Performance information is TBD for all CLINs, what start date shall offerors assume for base year CLINs (0001, etc.) for pricing purposes? | See response to question #2 | |
| 80 | Section L | 13 | 4.3.1.1 | Offerors are required to estimate the level of effort and describe the Basis of Estimate (BOE) for CPFF and CR CLINs as described in the referenced paragraph. However, the “Sample Task Orders” document (Section L Attachment 9) only provides a description of planned software scope for 4 SWAK releases and only describes training requirements for 1 year. Shall offerors assume a continuous level of effort for the remainder of the base period and the option years, based on the effort estimated for the first four SWAK releases and first year of training? | See response to question #13 | |
| 81 | Section L & Section L Atatchment 4, Model Contract | 29 | 4.5.1 | The Offeror's proposal shall include a signed copy of the Model Contract, and Sections A through K as detailed below. Offerors are required to complete Section A through K of the Model Contract; however, Attachment 4 is password protected and restricted from editing. Can the Government please provide an unlocked version for completion? | See response to question #66 | |
| 82 | Section L | 29 | 4.5.1.1 | The "original" copy should be clearly marked under separate cover | ||
| and should be provided without any punched holes. Since proposals shall be submitted electronically, can you please update or remove this requirement? | These instructions were kept in case an Offeror used a scanned copy of a signed document so that the entire page is provided without any missing information that could be covered by punch holes. | |||||
| 83 | Section L, attach 6 | Page 3/8 | 4 | In the SE&I Section L Attachment 6, section 4, it references both hard copy and electronic (CD) submissions of PPI. In the base SE&I Section L, section 3, there is no reference to hard copy submissions of documents. Will the government please clarify the submission requirements? | Instructions have been updated to remove refernces to hard copies. | |
| 84 | Section L | Page 5 | 3.7 | The Prime will submit via DoD Safe. Are subcontractors expected to do the same or will cost volumes and sealed package data be submitted directly to the CO and Contract Negotiator? If subcontractor proposals are to be submitted via DoD Safe, shall subcontractors contact the Government directly for the DoD Safe drop-off code, or shall the prime contractor request the codes on behalf of the subcontractors? | The Prime should submit their proposal with the subcontractor proposal in one package via DoD Safe. | |
| 85 | Section L | Page 14 | 4.3.6, paragraph 3 | This paragraph states in part, “Note: If the BOE for a subcontractor or IDT exceeds the 10% threshold that are included in the prime’s consolidated BOE, the subcontractor’s proposal need not include a separate BOE submission...” Please clarify: if a subcontractor is providing more than 10% of the total work effort, may the prime still provide the entirety of the BOE? | The Prime should provide the entirety of the BOE. | |
| 86 | Section L | Page 12 | 4.3.1 | The prime is required to submit both a sanitized and unsanitized cost volume. Are the subcontractors to do the same with their submittal to the government or do subcontractors submit just an unsanitized sealed package? | The Prime should consolidate everything into one proposal. | |
| 87 | Section L | Page 10 | 4.2.5.6.1.e | May the small business participation supporting documentation be submitted in PDF format? | Yes | |
| 88 | PWS | Page 32 | 3.8.1 | Does the government expect SIPRNet to be fully operational within a specific timeframe? | No | |
| 89 | PWS | Page 43 | 3.13.2 | Is the expectation that FSRs will perform immediate system triage if required and further Technical Support will be conducted via telephone or email within 24 hours? | Only if the FSR happens to be on site will immediate system triage occur. | |
| 90 | PWS | Page 44 | 3.13.4 | Is full-time on-site support expected at all 3 locations for TACP Innovation Cell support? If not, can the Government provide an estimate of the number and duration of trips required to support each location? | See response to question #69 | |
| 91 | Section L | Pages 3 & 6 | 3.1/4.1 | The Executive Summary volume is limited to 5 pages excluding the proposal cross reference matrix. Can the Government confirm that the cover page and master table of content do not count against the Executive Sumary volume page limit? | Please refernce Section L, pragraph 3.1.1: "3.1.1 Page Limitations |
Page limitations shall be treated as maximums. Each page shall be counted except the following: cover, table of contents, glossary, acronyms, and index."
92 Section L Page 5 3.5 For indexing, "Each volume shall contain a more detailed table of contents to delineate the subparagraphs within that volume." Can the Government confirm that table of contents (including List of Tables and Drawings) do not count against the page limitations for their respective volumes? Please refernce Section L, pragraph 3.1.1: "3.1.1 Page Limitations Page limitations shall be treated as maximums. Each page shall be counted except the following: cover, table of contents, glossary, acronyms, and index."
| 93 | Section L; Attachment 4 | L 4.5.1.3; Section F | L.29;77 | Section L states “The Offeror shall propose the delivery schedule by completing the blanks in Section F of the model contract.” Dates for items 0001, 0002 and 0003 are pre-populated by the Government, but the rest are marked “as required.” Could the Government clarify what blanks should be completed by Offerors on the delivery schedule? | See response to question #66 | |
| 94 | Attachment 4 | Section I – Contract Clauses | 86 | FAR 52.222-41 SERVICE CONTRACT LABOR STANDARDS (AUG 2018) is included in Attachment 4 Section I page 86. a. Does the government anticipate this contract to be SCA covered? b. If so, Can the Government please provide the applicable Wage Determination Schedule? | The Government does not anticipate that this contract will be covered under the Service Contract Labor Standards. | |
| 95 | PWS | PWS 3.8.1 | 32-33 | Please confirm that PWS Section 3.8.1 provides the contractor the option to establish a facility for SIPRNet access, but does not require a SIPRNet terminal within contractor’s facility to support this contract. | The PWS paragraph 3.8.1 states: "The Contractor shall be responsible for securing facilities, equipment and qualified/ cleared personnel to host, obtain certification and accreditation, and sustain Government provided SIPRNet interface/access at no cost to the Government IAW DoD 8570.01-M, Information Assurance Workforce Improvement Program." | |
| 96 | PWS | PWS 3.13.3; PWS Attch 2 | 43 | This section states that each "FSRs are anticipated to visit each location quarterly. Locations are in Attachment 2 Training and FSR Locations." Please confirm that it is the Government’s intent that each of the 73 locations will be visited quarterly. | See response to question #70. | |
| 97 | Is the Government is intending to procure communication service from a common carrier like Verizon, AT&T etc. on this contract since 52.232-06 PAYMENT UNDER COMMUNICATION SERVICE CONTRACTS WITH COMMON CARRIERS (APR 1984) is stated. | There is no intention to procure communication service on this contract | ||||
| 98 | General | Is it the USAF intent to have DCMA administer the contract? | No, the USAF does not intend DCMA to administer the contract | |||
| 99 | Secion L, Attachment 7 | SEI_-_Section_L_Attachment_7_Past_Performance_Questionnaire_-_25_April_Amended.pdf reflects the marking "Controlled Unclassified Information" at the top of each page. Would the Government please clarify the necessity of this marking as it pertains to Offerors' past performance citations. Specifically what information contained on that form necessitates a CUI marking? | Once the form is filled in, it becomes Controlled Unclassified Information. | |||
| 100 | DD-254 | Would the Government please QUANITFY the requirement of the form DD-254, Section 10 h. Ref Item 11d: "The contractor is required to provide adequate and approved storage for classified hardware or material to the level of SECRET which because of size or quantity cannot be safeguarded in an approved storage container. The contractor will require approved storage for classified hardware or material (in accordance with 32 CFR, Part 2001.43 and Part 2001.53)." How many sq. ft. is required? | This will be dependent on if and how much classified hardware or material is generated by the contractor in support of this contract. | |||
| 101 | Section L, Attachment 4, Model Contract | Section I | DFAR 252.246-7007 - Contractor Counterfeit Electronic Part Detection and Avoidance System, is stated in the PWS 3.8.6 (Page 37). This clause is not listed in the Model Contract under Section I. Please confirm that this clause applies. If it does apply, will it be listed under Section I? | The Model Contract has been updated to include this clause. | ||
| 102 | PWS | 37 | 3.8.6 | SAE AS5553B is stated in PWS 3.8.6 (Page 37). This is a historical version of the standard. Is it the Government's intent to reference AS5553D Counterfeit Electrical, Electronic, and Electromechanical (EEE) Parts; Avoidance, Detection, Mitigation, and Disposition? | The PWS has been updated to reference AS5553D. | |
| 103 | Secion L, | |||||
| Section M | L.4.3.9 | |||||
| M.2.3 | Would the government provide sizing/volume data for the SE&I task order, such as function points, lines of code, or story points? | The Government does not track sizing/volume data for through function points, lines of code or story points on the current development effort and does not have an estimate for the SE&I Task Orders. | ||||
| 104 | Secion L, | |||||
| Section M | L.4.3.9 | |||||
| M.2.3 | Would the government share their expected annual total level of effort (in labor hours) for the entire 10-year period of performance? | Refer to updated instructions in Section L, paragraph 4.3.10.3.1 and updated information in Section L, Attachment 9. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .